[Roundabout]

Brought to you by the Vast Conspiracy:

Visit http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/895, then scroll down nearly to the bottom, where you will see a large image of the earth. If you like, click on the Full Screen button at the bottom of the image, then click on the + sign at the upper left a few times. Many details of the earth's surface can be seen, including the east coast of the US and the Great Lakes at the upper left, and Europe at top center. And if you zoom in far enough, it looks flat. 

The rest of the page tells how the image was created. To get a hi-res color image of the earth from the moon, particularly with this image's spectacular occlusion of the earth by the moon, just attaching your Canon point-and-click to the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter doesn't suffice.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Brought to you by the Vast Conspiracy:

Visit http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/895, then scroll down nearly to the bottom, where you will see a large image of the earth. If you like, click on the Full Screen button at the bottom of the image, then click on the + sign at the upper left a few times. Many details of the earth's surface can be seen, including the east coast of the US and the Great Lakes at the upper left, and Europe at top center. And if you zoom in far enough, it looks flat. 

The rest of the page tells how the image was created. To get a hi-res color image of the earth from the moon, particularly with this image's spectacular occlusion of the earth by the moon, just attaching your Canon point-and-click to the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter doesn't suffice.

Clearly faked. I was able to make out the words "FET" (Northern Spain) and "Flo" (south of Madagascar) in the clouds! Maybe Flo from Progressive Insurance is really a flat earth agent, and is trying to tell us she has infiltrated the enemy HQ!??!?

Edit: The "o" in "Flo" is written with a little heart shape. It's definitely her!

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

It's actually clearly faked because it clearly looks fake. You have to really be lying to yourself if you say you've ever seen glossy dust before.

[TotesNotReptilian]

It's actually clearly faked because it clearly looks fake. You have to really be lying to yourself if you say you've ever seen glossy dust before.

First of all, it looks more matte than glossy to me. It does look oddly featureless though. I've never seen the surface of the moon up close in person, so I don't really have anything to compare it too..

However, there are several things to keep in mind about moon dust.

1. It is supposedly very fine (according to NASA).
2. It doesn't experience weathering. There are no worms or plants to churn the soil. No water to dig out little ridges. No wind to blow it around. It just stays exactly as it settles after a meteor impact.
3. The shadows are extremely sharp. There is no atmosphere to provide ambient light. We are used to seeing ambient light on everything on earth.

Knowing this, is it surprising that a smooth layer of fine dust without any ambient light appears oddly featureless/cartoonish compared to what we are used to seeing on earth? Imagine that it's a field of freshly fallen snow. Lit by a spotlight in the pitch black of night. Grey snow. With little meteor impacts in it.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

That's an awful lot of explaining. Just admit it looks fake. Doesn't even look like the surface from the fans Apollo footage, you think they would be consistent.

It's a terrible cgi, NASA needs a bigger budget, have you seen interstellar?

[rabinoz]

That's an awful lot of explaining. Just admit it looks fake. Doesn't even look like the surface from the fans Apollo footage, you think they would be consistent.

It's a terrible cgi, NASA needs a bigger budget, have you seen interstellar?

OK, so you don't like the idea of the Globe (of are you still sitting on the fence).
What about coming up with some viable alternative?

Or are you one of these negative people who simply never know what to believe?

[TotesNotReptilian]

That's an awful lot of explaining. Just admit it looks fake.

I will, actually. It looks fake. That doesn't mean it IS fake though. We are looking at an alien landscape. We have nothing on earth to compare it to. We need more evidence than "Meh! It looks fake" to make a decision on its authenticity.

Is there a problem in my "awful lot of explaining"? Complaining about the length isn't very helpful.

I actually find it quite fascinating that the unique conditions of the moon lends itself to a fake looking environment.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Suspension of disbelief at its finest.

[Roundabout]

That's an awful lot of explaining. Just admit it looks fake. Doesn't even look like the surface from the fans Apollo footage, you think they would be consistent.

We need something more helpful than "it looks fake." What specifically looks wrong, and why? What is the far side of the moon supposed to look like from 83 miles up? If you zoom the image to the max (button at upper left) you can see a lot of detail on the lunar surface, particularly near the bottom of the image, much closer to the cameras than near the lunar limb.

Bear in mind that the moon has very little water (no liquid water) and almost no atmosphere, and meteors have been using it for target practice for billions of years.

[Captain Magpie]

I don't see the issue, it just looks like dunes to me. Which would make sense as it is a layer of dust. Also, as someone near sighted I can attest to when there is a lot of bright, direct sunlight out I can see things much more clearly even with my corrective lenses on. Since it is unimpeded sunlight there is just a sharper contrast on very Hi-Res photo.

[Rounder]

That's an awful lot of explaining.

Suspension of disbelief at its finest.

Really?  You want to talk about 'an awful lot of explaining' and 'suspension of disbelief' with us?  The Flat Earth has BEST examples:

"Universal" Acceleration, which accelerates the earth, moon, sun, and other celestial objects (if not, the earth would be catching up to and passing some of them) but not any of the objects on or near the earth (as in: when I release a bowling ball in the air above the earth, why does that bowling ball not feel "universal" acceleration and begin accelerating in the same direction as the earth, which would make it appear to hover?)

The Shadow Object, the never-observed moon-like-thing that invisibly casts its shadow upon the moon during lunar eclipses, and otherwise leaves zero observational evidence of its existence.

Celestial Gears, which supposedly explains both why we have wind on the earth's surface, and how the stars rotate one direction in the northern hemisphere while rotating the other way in the southern hemisphere, but fails to address the fact that such a system would look truly bizarre at the equator (the two halves of the sky would have to diverge from each other as they set, in order to rotate in opposite directions from northern and southern latitudes).  And fails to address the fact that such a system is incompatible with the most popular flat earth 'map' on the site.

Bendy Light, a convenient hypothetical construct that allows FE to completely ignore the fact that light travels in straight lines except where it is subject to refraction, and even there refraction functions to move light from one straight-line path to another straight-line path, is well understood, and shows no experimental justification for working differently over long distances than short distances.  Ignore it, that is, until a flat earther uses perfectly-straight-line sun elevation observations to calculate the sun's elevation above a plane earth.  For some reason, when doing that math, the light of the sun doesn't bend or curve at all.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

That's an awful lot of explaining.

Suspension of disbelief at its finest.

Really?  You want to talk about 'an awful lot of explaining' and 'suspension of disbelief' with us?  The Flat Earth has BEST examples:

"Universal" Acceleration, which accelerates the earth, moon, sun, and other celestial objects (if not, the earth would be catching up to and passing some of them) but not any of the objects on or near the earth (as in: when I release a bowling ball in the air above the earth, why does that bowling ball not feel "universal" acceleration and begin accelerating in the same direction as the earth, which would make it appear to hover?)

The Shadow Object, the never-observed moon-like-thing that invisibly casts its shadow upon the moon during lunar eclipses, and otherwise leaves zero observational evidence of its existence.

Celestial Gears, which supposedly explains both why we have wind on the earth's surface, and how the stars rotate one direction in the northern hemisphere while rotating the other way in the southern hemisphere, but fails to address the fact that such a system would look truly bizarre at the equator (the two halves of the sky would have to diverge from each other as they set, in order to rotate in opposite directions from northern and southern latitudes).  And fails to address the fact that such a system is incompatible with the most popular flat earth 'map' on the site.

Bendy Light, a convenient hypothetical construct that allows FE to completely ignore the fact that light travels in straight lines except where it is subject to refraction, and even there refraction functions to move light from one straight-line path to another straight-line path, is well understood, and shows no experimental justification for working differently over long distances than short distances.  Ignore it, that is, until a flat earther uses perfectly-straight-line sun elevation observations to calculate the sun's elevation above a plane earth.  For some reason, when doing that math, the light of the sun doesn't bend or curve at all.

Dude, the picture looks like a 3d render from 1997. I can't believe how much shit you guys are willing to shovel into your mouth from NASA just to keep your space fantasy alive.

I'm not ddebating the shape of the earth right now, I'm appealing to common sense here. That "photograph" looks phoney as hell, no debate.

Even on a spherical earth I do not believe in space travel and this graphic certainly doesn't convince me.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+from+moon+apollo&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivkPrxzcjMAhVC8x4KHciKCgcQ_AUIBigB

Which is it? What does earth look like from the moon? How big does it look?

[Roundabout]

Dude, the picture looks like a 3d render from 1997. I can't believe how much shit you guys are willing to shovel into your mouth from NASA just to keep your space fantasy alive.

I'm not ddebating the shape of the earth right now, I'm appealing to common sense here. That "photograph" looks phoney as hell, no debate.

Even on a spherical earth I do not believe in space travel and this graphic certainly doesn't convince me.

You still haven't mentioned any specifics as to why it looks phony to you. When people say that something looks phony or fake, they can generally point to something that doesn't look right and explain why. You do realize, I trust, that the webpage says that the raw data from the cameras was processed in the ways described to generate the image.

[Roundabout]

https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+from+moon+apollo&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivkPrxzcjMAhVC8x4KHciKCgcQ_AUIBigB

Which is it? What does earth look like from the moon? How big does it look?

The full earth subtends about 2 degrees viewed from the Moon. The apparent size of the earth in a photo, of course, depends on whether a zoom lens was used, whether the photo was cropped, etc. The colors in a photo also depend on the camera and the specifics of how the data was processed to create the image. The same is true of pretty much any photographic subject.

[Roundabout]

That's an awful lot of explaining.

Suspension of disbelief at its finest.

Really?  You want to talk about 'an awful lot of explaining' and 'suspension of disbelief' with us?  The Flat Earth has BEST examples:

"Universal" Acceleration, which accelerates the earth, moon, sun, and other celestial objects (if not, the earth would be catching up to and passing some of them) but not any of the objects on or near the earth (as in: when I release a bowling ball in the air above the earth, why does that bowling ball not feel "universal" acceleration and begin accelerating in the same direction as the earth, which would make it appear to hover?)

The Shadow Object, the never-observed moon-like-thing that invisibly casts its shadow upon the moon during lunar eclipses, and otherwise leaves zero observational evidence of its existence.

Celestial Gears, which supposedly explains both why we have wind on the earth's surface, and how the stars rotate one direction in the northern hemisphere while rotating the other way in the southern hemisphere, but fails to address the fact that such a system would look truly bizarre at the equator (the two halves of the sky would have to diverge from each other as they set, in order to rotate in opposite directions from northern and southern latitudes).  And fails to address the fact that such a system is incompatible with the most popular flat earth 'map' on the site.

Bendy Light, a convenient hypothetical construct that allows FE to completely ignore the fact that light travels in straight lines except where it is subject to refraction, and even there refraction functions to move light from one straight-line path to another straight-line path, is well understood, and shows no experimental justification for working differently over long distances than short distances.  Ignore it, that is, until a flat earther uses perfectly-straight-line sun elevation observations to calculate the sun's elevation above a plane earth.  For some reason, when doing that math, the light of the sun doesn't bend or curve at all.

To add to the list, there is the sun's spiraling path above the earth. The sun's motion, if I'm not mistaken, is caused by the Flat Earth Force, the force that causes objects to move in a way consistent with Flat Earth Theory.

And let's not forget the Great NASA Conspiracy, by orders of magnitude the largest and most successful conspiracy in the history of the world.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Roundabout, has overwhelming condescension always been your dominating personality trait or is this just an aberration of your character?

It looks phoney to me because the surface looks smooth and shiny, in contradiction to any real dusty, dirt covered surface I've ever seen photographed, and in contradiction to what is shown in the thousands of other photos and videos of the surface allegedly captured by Apollo astronauts.

[Roundabout]

Roundabout, has overwhelming condescension always been your dominating personality trait or is this just an aberration of your character?

Always been my dominating personality trait.

It looks phoney to me because the surface looks smooth and shiny, in contradiction to any real dusty, dirt covered surface I've ever seen photographed, and in contradiction to what is shown in the thousands of other photos and videos of the surface allegedly captured by Apollo astronauts.

If you look near the bottom of the image at full zoom you'll see some rough-looking surfaces. The cameras were 83 miles above the lunar surface, not on the ground, so that may account for some differences from ground photos.

In any case, your objection is another instance of the "I-can't-understand-why-a-real-photo-would-look-like-this-therefore-fake" genre, very popular with Moon Hoaxers. If you don't know what a real photo of the Moon would look like, taken with those particular cameras under those specific conditions, and produced by the same image processing, then you don't really have grounds for concluding that the photo is a fake. If we saw golf courses or ocean beaches in a Moon photo, we would know it was faked, but all we have here is your subjective impression that it looks too smooth and shiny.

[Roundabout]

A related genre is the "I-don't-understand-why-this-piece-of-equipment-looks-this-way-therefore-fake" category. For a classic example, see this Wiki page:
http://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Quick to say the reason someone didn't believe something is because they don't understand it. It is nothing but a thinly veiled ad hominem attack.

Luckily for me, theres not a lot to understand here. It looks like 1994 cgi. The only knowledge I need for that is knowing how to use my eyes. Fortunately for me, the incredibly sophisticated process of interpreting light through a highly complex organ in my skull sockets is virtually done automatically.

There's nothing else that needs to be known. The absolute rejection of your own senses  in an effort to keep alive your bizarly overwhelming need to believe, is so very sad at this point.